Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options
re: -ffp-damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead If this option makes it into GCC, maybe it could be named -O3_unsafe. It would be (probably) default for 99% of projects out there to use this option alone (which is OK), so why not make their life easier. Just a thought. mirza
Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options
Robert Dewar wrote: I would avoid the words safe and unsafe, because a) they are technical terms in the realm of high integrity programming b) they are unnecessarily emotive (who wants unsafe code?) I agree, but term "unsafe" is less important then fact that developer will have only one gcc option to use in release mode. If he is doing something "special" (like math-related app) only _then_ he needs to learn and tune gcc options. Instead of O3_unsafe it can be O3_non_iso, O3_ni, O3ni ... whatever. mirza
G++ and ISO C++
Hi, Can someone point me to list of ISO C++ vs. g++ incompatibilities. thanks
Re: Will Apple still support GCC development?
A big endian system is indispensible if you are a compiler writer, because little endian hardware hides too many programmer errors Can you show example(s) where little endian hides errors? Just curious... Intel already handed icc + performace libs to apple, but from my experience icc doesn't create any faster code then gcc. Is there any *recent* benchmark that shows otherwise? I know that heavy math code is likely to perform better on icc but this is rather uninteresting to general audience. It would be interersting to see benchmark of programs that usually runs on most desktops/servers like MySQL, Apache, C++ IOStreams-heavy program, C++ STL-heavy program. If there is no such benchmark, I will do something along these lines to prove my (gcc-is-not-slower-then-icc-for-general-use) point. http://www.listicka.cz
